Braun: Rail tunnel project is dead, along with all the potential jobs

View full sizeTariq Zehawi/The RecordThe so-called ARC tunnel project was killed by Gov. Chris Christie, citing cost reasons. Pictured here is preliminary work that was done for the project on Tonnelle Avenue in the Hudson County town of North Bergen.

So, now we’ve learned that, when Gov. Chris Christie canceled the trans-Hudson train tunnel back in 2010, the estimates of its cost were not what he said they were. But we’ve also learned some estimates were subsequently raised so, with hindsight, he can say he had foresight.

This all means that, in what passes for policy debate in New Jersey, U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg can say the governor engaged in "public deception" and sacrificed "the future of New Jersey’s commuters" for "the short-term political needs of the governor."

To which, Christie’s spokesman can respond that "the taxpayers of New Jersey are fortunate that the governor showed strong leadership by putting them first." And, then, because anyone associated with Christie cannot avoid snarkiness, Michael Drewniak referred to Lautenberg as New Jersey’s "junior senator."

What is unassailably true is that the tunnel, the largest public transportation project in the nation’s history now is, in Drewniak’s words, "still dead" — because stealing a trope from "Saturday Night Live" is so just so clever. Like Francisco Franco, it is still dead, and not coming back.

What also is unassailably true is that New Jersey suffers from an unemployment rate of 9 percent, higher than the national average, and we are still waiting for the policy of giving tax breaks to corporations — instead of to transportation construction projects — to trickle down to the people who care less about what Christie thinks of Lautenberg than they do about making their mortgage payments.

Building the tunnel might have created tens of thousands of good construction jobs.

The latest controversy is a consequence of the publication of a report from the federal Government Accountability Office (GAO). It says that, in 2010, when Christie first indicated he would cancel the project because of cost overruns, there were no definite cost overruns. New Jersey was not on the hook for an additional $8 billion, as Christie had said, and the state was obligated to pay, not 70 percent of the cost, but 14.4 percent.

Drewniak, however, points out that later estimates from a planning study brought the high-end cost of the project to $12.6 billion, instead of $8.7 billion.

It's not that both sides are right about the flap, but that the flap must serve as consolation for those who still can’t find work and whose homes are still under-mortgage-water. No matter what Christie says about Lautenberg, the governor was the official who canceled the program, known as "Access to the Region’s Core," or ARC. He left a hole in the ground, at a time when New Jersey was hurting for jobs, as it still is.

Jennifer Brown/The Star-LedgerA commuter train passes near the abandoned construction site of what would have been the entrance of the ARC tunnel that is now filled in. This view is from Routes 1&9 looking over the site and above where the tunnel would have gone under the road.

There also is this intriguing excerpt from the GAO report: "Because the project was terminated before a full funding agreement was entered into between the FTA" — Federal Transit Administration — "and NJT" — New Jersey Transit — "there was no final agreement by all the parties on the issue of responsibility for ARC cost growth."

In other words, at least a chance existed that a tunnel, even a more expensive one, could have been built at no extra cost to New Jersey. Some may remember the last-minute efforts of U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to save the project. But Christie dug in his heels and took credit — as he still does — for saving New Jersey taxpayers money. Whether or not he did.

Ignored in all of this is what many people thought the ARC tunnel could have done for New Jersey. According to studies cited by the GAO, "During construction, the ARC project would have provided about 59,900 jobs directly onsite and total additional employment in the region of about 98,300 jobs." A decade after completion of the project, one study estimated, the region would gain 44,000 new jobs.

The project could have "produced $9 billion in business activity during construction and $120 million per year in business activity over the long term," the GAO reported.

"Studies also indicated that increased tax revenues would have resulted from the increases in economic activity from the ARC Project. The environmental study estimated that during construction, $1.5 billion in federal, state, and local taxes would have been generated."

In addition, the Regional Plan Association estimated that the average home value in the area would have jumped $19,000—adding to the property tax take.

But that’s all gone now and, when the smoke clears from the latest exchange between Lautenberg and Christie, the ARC project and all it could have done for the economy of New Jersey, is, as Drewniak says, "still dead."